Right, Ms. Ima. Lies like President Ronald Reagan, while surrounded by the most effective armed guards in the world, shot in a 1981 assassination attempt. Then, over a decade later, that same Reagan supported a ban on assault weapons.
You’re using England, where violent crime rates have skyrocketed since banning guns, as your example?!? Why not use Brazil? O right, because their gun crime rates are much much higher than ours, despite strict gun control laws. Why not mention Switzerland? O right, because their gun crime rates are much LOWER than our, despite widespread gun ownership. Why not compare the gun crime rates of NY and California to Vermont and New Hampshire? Why not compare the gun crime rates of cities like Chicago and DC to those of places that respect the natural human right to self-defense? O right, because those statistics don’t suit your anti-gun and anti-human agenda. Of course you’ll also ignore the many, many, many instances of private citizens using guns to defend themselves against violent criminals, which vastly outnumber instances of gun crimes. Because to “liberals”, reality isn’t what actually exists, or what’s actually true, reality is whatever is PC, whatever fits the radical leftist agenda of subjugating all people under totalitarian rule.
Absolutely, totally false. And “liberals” ARE fascists, most of you simply don’t understand that, because you don’t think about the things you say, or the things you pretend to believe, or what sort of principles you’ve accepted when you claim to believe something.
Oh wait, I see what you did there. You limited it to “home invasions”, so you could ignore the vast majority of examples of people using guns for self-defense.
“The age of man having to carry lethal means of protection is over….this I am 98% certain of”So, all the robberies, rapes, assaults, and other violent crimes never happened, as far as you’re concerned? So long as their are people out there willing to use violence against other people, there will be a need for humans to carry lethal means of protection.
BTW: given folks own cars and can buy a gun and then drive to Chicago, or D.C., or Anaheim, it’s reason for NATIONAL law and standards. That INCLUDES making standard background checks and certification for concealed carry permits (I happen to think Oregon standards are pretty adequate) so that you get a permit where you live, and can carry anywhere. (That also goes along with the "Commerce clause.)
“Davis”, what does the “M” stand for?? You can live in Chicago, or D.C., and drive only a few miles to legally buy a gun, go home, and blow somebody away. You can even go by bicycle, come back, and carjack somebody to get motorized transportation!
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
Far truer to reality, and not even in the realm of the paranoids.
ConserveGov over 11 years ago
Those are the bodies of unarmed people who couldn’t defend themselves against criminals because of no-carry laws.
tpenna over 11 years ago
Right, ConserveGov. Because only unarmed people ever get shot.
tpenna over 11 years ago
Right, Ms. Ima. Lies like President Ronald Reagan, while surrounded by the most effective armed guards in the world, shot in a 1981 assassination attempt. Then, over a decade later, that same Reagan supported a ban on assault weapons.
Harrison_Bergeron over 11 years ago
You’re using England, where violent crime rates have skyrocketed since banning guns, as your example?!? Why not use Brazil? O right, because their gun crime rates are much much higher than ours, despite strict gun control laws. Why not mention Switzerland? O right, because their gun crime rates are much LOWER than our, despite widespread gun ownership. Why not compare the gun crime rates of NY and California to Vermont and New Hampshire? Why not compare the gun crime rates of cities like Chicago and DC to those of places that respect the natural human right to self-defense? O right, because those statistics don’t suit your anti-gun and anti-human agenda. Of course you’ll also ignore the many, many, many instances of private citizens using guns to defend themselves against violent criminals, which vastly outnumber instances of gun crimes. Because to “liberals”, reality isn’t what actually exists, or what’s actually true, reality is whatever is PC, whatever fits the radical leftist agenda of subjugating all people under totalitarian rule.
Harrison_Bergeron over 11 years ago
Absolutely, totally false. And “liberals” ARE fascists, most of you simply don’t understand that, because you don’t think about the things you say, or the things you pretend to believe, or what sort of principles you’ve accepted when you claim to believe something.
Harrison_Bergeron over 11 years ago
Oh wait, I see what you did there. You limited it to “home invasions”, so you could ignore the vast majority of examples of people using guns for self-defense.
Harrison_Bergeron over 11 years ago
Why?
Harrison_Bergeron over 11 years ago
“The age of man having to carry lethal means of protection is over….this I am 98% certain of”So, all the robberies, rapes, assaults, and other violent crimes never happened, as far as you’re concerned? So long as their are people out there willing to use violence against other people, there will be a need for humans to carry lethal means of protection.
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
BTW: given folks own cars and can buy a gun and then drive to Chicago, or D.C., or Anaheim, it’s reason for NATIONAL law and standards. That INCLUDES making standard background checks and certification for concealed carry permits (I happen to think Oregon standards are pretty adequate) so that you get a permit where you live, and can carry anywhere. (That also goes along with the "Commerce clause.)
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
“Davis”, what does the “M” stand for?? You can live in Chicago, or D.C., and drive only a few miles to legally buy a gun, go home, and blow somebody away. You can even go by bicycle, come back, and carjack somebody to get motorized transportation!
Harrison_Bergeron over 11 years ago
That should be up to the business owner.